FILE THIS FORM LETTER IN TRIPLICATE, THEN TOSS IN CIRCULAR FILE.

Byline: GREGORY J. WILCOX

I might become a NIMBY, one of those ``not-in-my-back-yard'' zealots real soon. Or more accurately, a NNMBY (not near my backyard.)

Right now, I'm not sure which side of our fence I'll settle on, if either.

Something might be real near my backyard, though, said the letter from the Los Angeles City Planning Department. A three-parcel, single-family subdivision on 21,000 square feet of land. We see a lot of those feet from our second-floor office and master bedroom windows.

Now those 21,000 square feet contain a small green house and what looks like a garage, a brown car and some fruit trees.

I'd know more about what might be there if I had found the letter, jammed inside a catalog, before the hearing date had past.

The letter itself wasn't much help. It did say that ``two of the proposed parcels will have flag lot configurations.''

A flag lot is, as it sounds, shaped like a flag, with the driveway headed down like a flag pole.

Our parcel, and my neighbors', are shaped like wedges of pie.

Are these pie lot configurations?

Can flags and pies co-exist in the same neighborhood?

There was an identity issue, too. This development didn't have a clear one.

Typically, most developments, even small ones like West Hills Estates, have names. So far this one is going by AA 2005-6054-PMLA, which lacks billboard appeal. This hearing would be about the project's environmental document, ENV-2005-6055-CE.

The letter said that the hearing would give us and our neighbors and the applicant/subdivider a chance to sumbit written or verbal testimony.

It also said that the complete file on the project is available for viewing, but that requires a trip downtown.

A phone number was included to call for further information. I called it on Friday but never heard back.

I also called deputy planning director Robert H. Sutton. We played phone tag.

This was obviously a form letter and the city sends out lots of them. And most of the information, save the time, date and place of the hearing, was useless.

The hearing was held by the Deputy Advisory Agency. First time I've ever heard of them. But if they OK what ever the hearing was about it would become effective 15 days from the decision date unless an appeal to the area planning commission was submitted in triplicate form on CP-7769, what ever that is.

I have a better idea.

Rather than clutter up these kinds of letter with stuff like the above and self-serving statements that the city of Los Angeles does not discriminate, put some useful information in the notices.

Like the name of the developer, his phone number, a plot plan and how big the new houses are going to be.

And for goodness sakes, tell the affected property owners what kind of flag a flag lot looks like.

Gregory J. Wilcox, [phone]

greg.wilcox(at)dailynews.com